User:Akanai14/Disability studies in education/Lena Khalidi Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Akanai14
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Disability studies in education

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I don't believe the Lead has been updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence clearly describes what the article is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes it is concise and not overly detailed.

Lead evaluation
The opening sentence of the lad clearly describes the articles topic. The lead is concise and clear and is not overly detailed. It does not seem to be updated. I think including a brief description of the article's major sections would be beneficial.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, there seems to be content that is missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I can't find anything that refers to Wikipedia's equity gaps but the topic does refer to underrepresented populations.

Content evaluation
The user added relevant references that pertain to the topic. They updated references 5-11 because they were outdated and added a substantial amount of content to the "Foundations" and "Issues" sections. It still looks like the "Foundations" section is missing some citations. The second paragraph in this section does not contain any citations or references.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The social model description seems to be more biased than the medical model description but both sections are substantial and well represented. There is no heavy bias in terms of persuading the reader in favor of position or away from another. The medical model section has more references and citations which is why the social model section seems more biased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I can see that the author added current and relevant sources. I do think that more citations could be added as I stated above. All the links I clicked on were relevant and current and were from various and divers authors. They all seem to reflect the available literature on the topic. In terms of key words, I do think that they are some areas where these words can link to another Wikipedia page -- such as the social model section.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is well organized and easy to read. In the lead it would be helpful to have a contents tab with the article's main topic. There are only two sections, but the content that has been added by this author is substantial and I still think there is time to add more in the future. The content that was added has enhanced the article and is relevant to the topic. More sections would be helpful to get a more comprehensive idea of the Disability Studies in Education.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
I think adding an image or two would really enhance the visual aspect of the page. I believe the author wrote a note about doing so.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content added has improved the overall quality of the article. I specifically enjoyed the "Issues" section and the contrast between medical model and social model. The article could user more citations in certain places, but the citations that were added are all relevant and current. In terms of content, I feel like this is a good start but more could be added to get a wider perspective on the topic. Nice job overal!